Law6 Final

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    1/32

    T H E L A W O F A R M E D C O N F L I C T

    C o m ma n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

    Lesson 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    2/32

    International C ommittee of the Red C ross

    Unit for Relations with Armed and Security Forces

    19 Avenue de la Paix

    1202 Geneva, Switzerland

    T +41 22 734 60 01 F +41 22 733 20 57

    E-mail: dc_com_fas.gva@ icrc.org

    www.icrc.org

    O riginal: English June 2002

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    3/32

    COMM AN D RESPONSIBILITY

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    4/32

    LESSON 6

    AIM

    [Slide 2]

    The aim of this lesson is to explain the responsibilities ofcomm anders at all levels in relation to the law of arm ed conflict.

    The following main topics will be covered:

    1.An introduction to the subject and definitions of some key terms.

    2.The responsibilities of the individual combatant.

    3.General responsibilities of commanders.

    4.Criminal responsibility of commanders for the actions of subordinates.

    5.Operational command.

    6.Command in special cases.

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    5/32

    1. INTRODUCTION

    This lesson will focus on key issues of the law that directly affect you as

    commanders. This means command at any level. The commander-in-

    chief of an armed force obviously has overall responsibility, but the sec-

    tion commander and even individual soldiers also have responsibility in

    relation to the law of armed conflict.

    Respect for the law is really a matter of discipline and discipline is a

    product of good leadership, professionalism and training. Remember,

    too, that your State has specifically undertaken, in the Geneva

    Conventions and other instruments of humanitarian law, to ensure, in

    particular through its commanders, that the law is upheld. The law must

    therefore obviously be taught, something the States have also under-

    taken to do in their programmes of military instruction. In the light of a

    nation's obligation to provide this instruction, ignorance of the law is

    inexcusable and no defence in the event of violations. It is in peacetime

    that we have time to consider the law, to teach and to train. Once the

    fighting has started, it is too late. J ust as we teach drills and principles

    for attack and defence, so as a matter of routine we should cover the

    provisions of the law so that they become second nature and will not be

    forgotten or dismissed in the fog and confusion of battle.

    As we progress with this lesson, you will see that the key responsibilities

    of commanders at any level in relation to the law are:

    to study and understand it;

    to ensure their subordinates are trained so that they also have a clear

    understanding of what can and cannot be done within the law;

    to ensure by means of good leadership and discipline and by issuing

    unambiguous, lawful orders that the law is always applied;

    never to turn a blind eye to violations of the law. Failure to act (i.e. to

    prevent or to repress violations) when the law is being flouted cannot

    be tolerated from any commander. It will result in disciplinary and

    perhaps even criminal action being taken against you.

    DEFINITIONS

    These are some of the terms we will be using in this lesson:

    War crimes A war crime is any serious violation of the law of armed

    conflict that entails individual criminal responsibility. Serious viola-

    tions in non-international armed conflicts are also war crimes. The

    Statutes and/or jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunals

    COMM AN D RESPONSIBILITY

    2 - 6

    GP I, Art. 86

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    6/32

    for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and of the International Criminal

    Court all refer to violations of GC common Article 3 and other seriousviolations derived in particular from GP II.

    Grave breaches The most serious war crimes are called grave breach-

    es. They are specifically listed in the Geneva Conventions and

    Additional Protocol I. They include wilful killing, torture, inhumane

    treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or

    health, the taking of hostages, wilfully depriving a POW or other pro-

    tected person of the right to a fair and regular trial, and launching an

    indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects

    in the knowledge that such an attack will cause excessive loss of life,

    injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects.

    This list is by no means exhaustive. It merely illustrates the level of

    crime we are talking about. For more senior audiences, you may wish to

    refer to the complete list included in Annex A or copy it as a handout for

    them to take away.

    JURISDICTION , OR THE OBLIGATION TO REPRESS WAR CRIM ES

    All States have the right to try or extradite any person alleged to have

    committed a war crime, regardless of the nationality of the actor, the

    victim or the place where the act occurred.

    States have a duty to try war crimes committed by their troops.

    States have a duty to try war crimes committed on their own territory or

    on territory under their control.

    States have a duty to seek out all those allegedly responsible for the

    commission or who allegedly have ordered the commission of grave

    breaches and to try or extradite them, regardless of the nationality of

    the perpetrator, the victim or the place where the conduct took place.

    3 - 6

    LESSON 6

    GC I, Art. 50

    GC II, Art. 51

    GC III, Art. 130

    GC IV, Art. 147

    GP I, Arts. 11 & 85

    GC I, Art. 49

    GC II, Art. 50GC III, Art. 129

    GC IV, 146

    GP I, Arts. 85 & 86

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    7/32

    2. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH

    THE LAW

    Every member of the armed forces, whatever his or her rank, has a per-

    sonal responsibility to comply with the law. Commanders must ensure

    that it is complied with by others and take action when violations are

    encountered.

    SUPERIOR ORDERS

    It is no defence to a war crime that the act was committed in compli-

    ancewith a superior order.

    A soldier who carries out an order which is illegal under the law of

    armed conflict is guilty of a war crime, provided that he or she was

    aware of the circumstances which made that order unlawful or could

    reasonably have been expected to be aware of them.

    This point is of great significance to any soldier. It is a simple point to

    make but so very much more difficult for soldiers to actually carry out.

    It means they must refuse a command if they believe it to be unlawful.Surely unflinching loyalty and obedience to superior commanders are

    fundamental to any armed force. This is true, BUT there is clearly a higher

    loyalty, to your State and its laws. The duty of all soldiers not to comply

    with unlawful orders is quite clearly established in international law.

    During the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials that followed the Second World

    War, the defence of superior orders, while considered a mitigating factor

    in relation to sentencing, in no way excused law breakers. The principle

    has been reaffirmed in modern tribunals such as those set up to deal

    with war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

    If an order is plainly unlawful, you have a duty not to carry it out.

    Your commander has a duty not to issue such orders. Indeed, individual

    soldiers should hardly ever find themselves faced with the dilemma of

    carrying out unlawful orders because in a professional armed force,

    with good commanders who know the rules, no unlawful orders should

    be issued in the first place.

    We will now look at general command responsibilities and examine

    what they imply in actual operations.

    COMM AN D RESPONSIBILITY

    4 - 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    8/32

    3. GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMANDERS

    Members of the armed forces who have powers of command are under

    a duty to:

    maintain firm but fair discipline;

    [Slide 3]

    demonstrate, by their interest and emphasis on training in peacetimeand of course their behaviour in battle, that they respect the law (the

    examples set by commanders are of paramount importance in upholding

    the law, and poor examples have been the cause of grave breaches

    of the law in the past, the most vivid instance in recent history being

    the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War);

    [Slide 4]

    make full use of the machinery available to them to investigate and

    prosecute violations of the law, and make it quite clear to their sub-

    ordinates that enforcement applies as much to attacking an unlawful

    target as it does to being absent without leave and that it applies to

    ALL ranks;

    build legal problems into exercises and war games;

    ensure their orders are absolutely clear and not liable to misinter-

    pretation (soldiers are very quick to pick up a remark by a superior.

    If you dont mean it, dont say it. Beware of remarks made as jokes,

    as a form of bravado or to impress your subordinates);

    take responsibility for difficult decisions;

    report offenders to superior officers who have the power to disciplinethem;

    report any violations committed by their side, by friendly forces or by

    the enemy to a higher authority.

    RESPONSIBILITY OF STAFF OFFICERS

    Staff officers, though they do not have operational command respon-

    sibility, are still criminally liable if they become aware of current or

    pending war crimes and do not prevent them or fail to report them to

    their superiors.

    5 - 6

    LESSON 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    9/32

    4. CRIM INA L RESPONSIBILITY OF COMM AN DERS FOR ACTS

    COMMITTED BY THEIR SUBORDINATES

    Commanders will be held criminally responsible under the law if:

    they knew, or should have known, that subordinates were going to

    break the law, i.e. commit a war crime, but did nothing to prevent it;

    they fail to take any action against (punish or report) subordinates

    who have already committed a war crime.

    A commander therefore cannot use the excuse, I did not know.

    Command means just that being in control and being responsible for

    what is happening in your command all the time, every time.

    5. OPERATIONAL COMMAND

    Let us now apply this rule to operational command. We will do this by

    relating it directly to the phases of battle preparation with which you are

    all familiar.

    As a commander, your starting point for any operation is the mission.

    Once you have the mission, you make a battle plan. To do this you will

    assess, mentally or in writing, all the factors relevant at the time, such

    as ground and enemy forces, your own forces, logistics, courses open,

    etc. Having done this, you decide on the best course of action your

    plan is complete.

    You then have to pass this plan on to your subordinates, so you will

    issue orders.

    Lastly, you have to control the engagement.

    Throughout this process, a well-trained commander must always, as a

    matter of almost subconscious thought, take into account the law of

    armed conflict. You may well wonder, How can I possibly do that?

    I have enough on my plate anyway. If I spend so much time on all this

    law business Ill never get past the starting line.You can, because the

    law in relation to operational command is simple and straightforward.

    What is more, taking account of the law will also greatly assist you in

    formulating a sound and workable plan. Finally, quite frankly you must!

    COMM AN D RESPONSIBILITY

    6 - 6

    GC I, Art. 49

    GC II, Art. 50

    GC III, Art. 129

    GC IV, 146HCCP, Art. 28

    GP I, Arts. 86 & 87

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    10/32

    So let us go back to the beginning and look at the law in relation to the

    phases of battle preparation.

    THE MISSION OR AIM

    In operations, the task that a unit is required to perform will be defined

    in orders that the commanding officer receives from higher authority

    and that frame the mission or aim. The orders will also lay down clear

    parameters for conducting the operation and are likely to contain details

    such as the rules of engagement.

    There is really only one legal concern here. Is the mission consistent

    with the law of armed conflict? Is the unit being asked to do something

    that is unlawful? If there is any room for doubt about the military or

    legal aspects of the mission, including the rules of engagement, a good

    commander will seek immediate clarification through the chain of com-

    mand. So now we have a feasible and legal mission; let us move on to

    the next phase.

    THE PLAN

    [Slide 5]

    We can sum up the legal aspects involved in the planning process in

    three points:

    the need for good intelligence;

    the precautions that must be taken;

    the final analysis, or, as it is sometimes called, the battle apprecia-

    tion, where all factors are taken into consideration to ensure that

    your best course of action based on the tactical situation complies

    with the law.

    Intelligence

    Intelligence information is the starting point of any plan. Commanders

    will be eager to gather as much information as they can to assist them

    in fulfilling their mission. Certainly, information on the enemys

    strength, location, etc., and on civilian concentrations, protected prop-

    erty, and so on, is of great importance. This information must of coursebe up to date.

    7 - 6

    LESSON 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    11/32

    [Slide 6]

    The law is straightforward in this respect, and many of you will remember

    that it is perfectly legitimate to search for information of military value

    in enemy controlled areas as long as the soldiers doing so are in uniform

    and do not conceal their combatant status. In other words, they will be

    considered spies if they collect the information in a clandestine manner.

    While espionage is not prohibited by the law, any soldiers captured while

    operating in this way (i.e. undercover and not in uniform) lose their POW

    status and can face severe punishment. Reconnaissance patrols, specialforces patrols, air reconnaissance and so on are all well within the law.

    What about obtaining intelligence from captured soldiers or civilians?

    Again, the law gives clear guidance. Captured soldiers may be tactically

    questioned, but they are obliged to give you no more than their number,

    rank, name and date of birth. They must not be tortured or coerced into

    passing on intelligence information.

    Civilians cannot be ill-treated or compelled to give you information either.

    You can certainly ask for information from both and you might well get it.

    The point is, dont resort to torture or any form of coercion. You might

    also wish to consider whether tactical information of this sort is actually

    worth much to you. Is it accurate? Is it being given out of fear or to mislead

    you? It might be better to rely on expert intelligence gained in the proper

    manner through the intelligence system and by trained interrogators.

    Precautions

    The intelligence process, as well as telling you about the enemy, alsolets you know about the precautions to be taken during an operation.

    You must act accordingly as a matter of routine. Your aim must be to do

    everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither

    civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection.

    Feasible means that you have to do everything that is practically pos-

    sible, taking into account all the circumstances ruling at the time, including

    both humanitarian and military considerations. Your choice of means

    and methods of attack must aim at minimizing civilian casualties and

    must ensure that you will not decide to launch an attack which may be

    expected to cause collateral damage which would be excessive in relation

    to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. As you cansee, even in the normal process of planning the law comes into play and

    must influence your final decisions.

    COMM AN D RESPONSIBILITY

    8 - 6

    HR IV, Art. 2 9GP I, Art. 46

    HR IV, Art. 2 3

    GP I, Arts. 57 & 58

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    12/32

    The final analysis

    [Slide 7]

    The time has now come for you to make your final decision. You have all

    the factors any good commander needs to do this. You have the neces-

    sary intelligence to avoid hitting an unlawful target. You know what

    precautions you need to take in order to avoid or at least minimize civilian

    casualties and damage. On this basis, you can decide what measures can

    be taken to achieve your mission, while at the same time ensuring you

    comply with your legal obligations. As you can see, the process is quitesimple and logical. The law, as we have said, reflects good military

    practice and professionalism.

    ORDERS

    [Slide 8]

    The next stage in the business of operational command is to pass your

    decisions on to your subordinates in the form of orders. These orders

    must, of course, be practicable and in conformity with the law. They

    must clearly state the mission and the military details of how it will be

    achieved. They must include clear rules on how you intend getting the

    intelligence you need to achieve your aim and comply with the law, e.g.

    reconnaissance patrols need to be carefully briefed.

    The orders must clearly indicate localities and objects to be avoided.

    They must give exact details for the rapid evacuation of the wounded,

    for the treatment and evacuation of any POWs, for respect and collection

    of the dead, including those of the enemy. They must give clear rulesof engagement, e.g. orders for opening fire and on the use of particular

    weapons.

    Where relevant, the orders will cover interaction with the civilian pop-

    ulation. They may include warnings for civilians not to use certain

    routes or to take shelter, advice for them to evacuate certain areas such

    as tactically important parts of a town. Orders might be required to

    provide for assistance in this evacuation, or concerning liaison with the

    civilian medical authorities and the joint use of medical facilities. The

    element of surprise may preclude some such orders, but they must be

    given wherever feasible.

    9 - 6

    LESSON 6

    GP I, Arts. 57 & 58

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    13/32

    CONTROL

    Control is the last step in the exercise of operational command. Its

    purpose is to ensure that orders are carried out according to the plan.

    You cannot just give orders and then relax. Commanders remain

    responsible throughout for the conduct of their subordinates. They may

    have to intervene by radio or directly to correct a course of action or to

    impose their leadership from the front.

    We know that a commander will control the battle through a command

    post, perhaps from a tank, or even on the ground next to his radio oper-

    ator. Commanders who have trained their troops well should have few

    problems with breaches of the law. The troops know their job. They

    know what they can and cannot do. Thanks to clear orders and team

    work, they know exactly what their commander expects of them.

    Not all battles go exactly to plan there is a military saying that quite

    often the plan is the first casualty of war. Adjustments may well have

    to be made by commanders and hasty orders issued over the radio or

    in person. Subordinates may have to use their initiative. What happens

    if the commander is killed? Maintenance of momentum is a key principle

    of war. Hesitation or delay may well lose you the day. So the second-in-command may have to take over and all ranks down the chain of com-

    mand in the unit will have to use common sense and flexibility to ensure

    they achieve the original mission within the law of armed conflict.

    Let us look at a few examples to highlight the points we have made so

    far. Imagine you are commanding your unit on operations.

    While attacking a town, you discover that there is a civilian hospital on

    the main axis of advance. You had been unaware of its existence,

    despite your efforts to gain good intelligence. It is clearly marked with

    the red cross or red crescent (red lion and sun). The area of the building

    was registered in your orders as a possible defensive fire (DF) task for

    your supporting artillery battery. The artillery will engage it on a pre-

    planned and timed fire plan. What should you do?

    Or

    You know that the town has a museum clearly marked and known to all

    as protected cultural property. Your original orders stated that this building

    was to be avoided. You first notice a radio antenna on the roof. Then

    suddenly you come under effective fire from it. Five of your leading

    platoon are killed. What can you do?

    COMM AN D RESPONSIBILITY

    10 - 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    14/32

    In the first example, a good commander would issue rapid radio orders

    and cancel the fire mission for the artillery. In the second, he wouldimplement the principle of proportionality and would engage with suitable

    weapons to neutralize his opponents while trying his best to minimize

    the damage if at all possible.

    Let us look at one more example.

    Your leading platoon is approaching its final objective. Suddenly they

    see their opponents waving white flags. What does this mean? Not nec-

    essarily surrender, but maybe the enemy wants to negotiate. Your lead

    platoon commander shouts to them to send forward men to negotiate

    and decides to go forward himself with his radio operator into no-mans

    land to hear what they have to say. As they move forward, your officer and

    his radio operator are shot down by machine-gun fire. What do you do?

    Your opponents have lost their right to protection under the white flag.

    Obviously military necessity dictates that you now neutralize them. It

    does not mean you now have the right to issue the illegal order no

    quarter, or no survivors. You come back to the law and despite your

    anger and frustration you contain your feelings and fight on under the

    rules. That is, as hard as you can, but with due regard for the injured and

    captured. Remember in all cases such as this that although the law hasbeen broken, you are not justified in overreacting or violating the law

    yourself. This is an example of an extremely difficult command situation.

    You must deal with these and similar situations with a cool head and

    tight control. That is why YOU ARE IN COMM AND.

    6. COM M AND IN SPECIAL CASES

    These sections can be regarded as optional, to be included only as

    required, e.g. if the students are about to deploy on UN operations or on

    internal security duties.

    Let us now look at some special or more difficult cases before we leave

    the subject of command responsibility. A conventional operation is in

    fact reasonably simple for a well-trained commander and his troops.

    The opponent is definable. The mission is straightforward, e.g. destroy

    the enemy on hill X. What about less conventional operations, for exam-

    ple, reconnaissance patrols or raids in enemy-held territory? What

    about United Nations peace-keeping and peace-enforcement operations

    or internal security operations? We will briefly outline the special prob-

    lems of command in relation to these operations.

    11 - 6

    LESSON 6

    GP I, Arts. 51 (5b)

    & 57 (2a(ii) & (iii) & b)

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    15/32

    OPERATIONS IN ENEMY-CONTROLLED TERRITORY

    For operations like patrols or raids, higher commanders will need to issue

    very specific orders tailored to the task. These operations place consider-

    able responsibility on the shoulders of the patrol leaders, junior officers

    or non-commissioned officers who are operating independently in a highly

    dangerous environment. Although they are on their own, they must act

    within the law. Orders here might well cover such additional details as:

    Action on capture expected behaviour, e.g. what to do with docu-

    ments of military value, duty or not to escape, rights if captured, what

    to say when questioned.

    Action if compromised let us use an example.You command a recon-

    naissance patrol and despite your best efforts to avoid detection, the

    enemy discovers you. A fight ensues. You kill three of the enemy and cap-

    ture one who has a minor bullet wound in the arm. What do you do now?

    Lets take the same patrol, but this time you are discovered by three

    passing farmers. You capture them. What do you do with them?

    These are real operational dilemmas that any junior commander might

    face. In both cases, the patrol has obviously been discovered, the soundof shooting may have alerted others. Will the commander abort or can-

    cel his mission, change positions or just lie low and continue later?

    These are purely tactical decisions. What about the legal aspects? Here

    the law does give guidance. In relation to wounded soldiers, it states that

    in unusual conditions of combat which prevent evacuation they should

    be released and all feasible precautions taken to ensure their safety.

    Regarding civilians, we know full well that they are protected by the law.

    What are a commanders options in such circumstances? To kill the soldier

    and civilians would clearly be a grave breach of the law, i.e. a war crime.

    To take the civilians with the patrol is obviously impractical. They could,

    however, be left where they are, perhaps loosely tied up to give the

    patrol enough time to make a clean break.

    As for the wounded soldier, if the patrol decides to abort its mission it

    might well have the ability to move to a rendezvous position and be

    picked up by helicopter. In that case, it could take the enemy soldier

    along, having attended to any wounds. Distance and the severity of the

    wound will be a determining factor.

    A more likely scenario is that the soldier will be left behind. The patrol

    should bear in mind the law and do everything it feasibly can to ensure

    COMM AN D RESPONSIBILITY

    12 - 6

    GP I, Art. 41

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    16/32

    the wounded enemys safety. It can arrange a drop in or close to a vil-

    lage on a road where the soldier is likely to be discovered. It can leavebehind first-aid material.

    Again, commanders are required to balance pure military necessity, i.e.

    accomplishing the mission or returning the patrol safely to base, against

    concern for humanity and correct treatment of wounded combatants.

    UNITED NATIONS MISSIONS

    United Nations missions can pose some of the greatest problems for

    commanders. They can be extremely complicated militarily and politically.

    The real test of any commander is to know exactly what law applies and

    ensure orders to subordinates are quite clear. The success of such operations

    often depends on individual initiative exercised at relatively low levels. The

    burden of responsibility often rests at platoon commander level and below.

    Many of the command responsibilities we have already mentioned con-

    tinue to apply. Depending on the nature of the mission, however, different

    command responses will be required.

    [Slide 9]

    For peace-keeping operations The need for neutrality and impartiality

    in dealing with all sides is vital. There is no enemy. There are no sides.

    You are there to maintain or help restore peace. Soldiers unused to such

    operations need careful pre-deployment training and briefing. The use

    of force now becomes a last resort. This is a major change for soldiers

    who in the main are trained for conventional operations where massive

    use of force is required. The rules regarding the use of force only in self-

    defence will have to be clearly explained.

    As stated in theSecretary-Generals Bulletin on International Humanitarian

    Law, (see Annex B of the Users Guide for this section), which discusses

    the laws applicability to United Nations peace-keeping forces, the fun-

    damental principles of the law of armed conflict will apply. Your own mil-

    itary law certainly applies, as does human rights law. In addition, com-

    manders will have to acquaint themselves with the laws of the host

    country, as well as the particular rules laid down by the United Nations

    headquarters commanding the mission.

    For peace-enforcement operations States providing troops for peace-enforcement operations do so on behalf of the international community

    under the authority of the United Nations Charter. However, each contingent

    13 - 6

    LESSON 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    17/32

    is bound not only by its own military law but also by any international law

    of armed conflict treaties its country has ratified. The Geneva Conventionsand other instruments of humanitarian law will therefore apply, as will cus-

    tomary international law. In addition, the United Nations has issued spe-

    cific guidelines on the observance by United Nations forces of the law of

    armed conflict, namely the Bulletin mentioned above.

    These operations place great responsibility on commanders at all levels.

    Although neutrality may no longer be an issue, dealing in an even-

    handed manner with all sides to the conflict certainly does. The need for

    an impartial approach remains of paramount importance and should be

    a feature of all briefings and orders. Rules of engagement will be issued

    by headquarters and need to be carefully explained to subordinates.

    The treatment of troublemakers or even captured armed personnel

    needs to be absolutely clear. Troops will need to know their rights and

    responsibilities when dealing with humanitarian organizations.

    INTERNAL SECURITY OPERATIONS

    This can be used here or included in the section devoted to this level of

    operations.

    [Slide 10]

    These are operations that fall below the threshold of the law of armed con-

    flict, i.e. even below GC common Article 3. What law is available to guide

    the commander and how should one approach such operations? Your

    States law and your military law will apply. In addition, human rights law

    comes to the fore and must guide your actions. In practical terms, however,much of what we have already covered still applies. Let us take a typical

    internal security operation and highlight the key command issues.

    The task might be to calm a demonstration which is getting out of con-

    trol and has the makings of a full-blown riot. Some demonstrators are

    thought to be carrying small arms, some are equipped with home-made

    nail bombs and Molotov cocktails (i.e. petrol bombs). A mission not

    entirely without its problems. Some demonstrators, we know, are

    armed but they will not be carrying their weapons openly. They will nat-

    urally wish to blend in with the civilian demonstrators. These operations

    can be among the most difficult faced by military commanders and theirtroops in that they are called on to act somewhere between a soldier

    and a policeman.

    COMM AN D RESPONSIBILITY

    14 - 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    18/32

    Who is the enemy?

    Here the orders and intelligence process have to be first class in order

    to avoid unnecessary casualties and achieve the aim. There must be

    clear orders for opening fire, for control of fire, for treatment of civilians.

    Absolute control during the operation is essential. Things can easily get

    out of hand. The troops might overreact, or your opponents draw you

    into breaking the law. It may indeed be their aim to discredit the military

    and gain publicity or sympathy for their cause.

    Good command, control, training and flexibility are the keys to success.

    Remember, in these situations you are dealing with your own people on

    your own territory. Obviously they deserve treatment that is no less than

    that you give an external foe. There is no reason why soldiers trained in

    the law of armed conflict should not apply its basic principles even at this

    lower level of violence. In addition, other principles more related to human

    rights law come into play, such as the need to use minimum force to

    achieve the aim, the need for restraint, the obligation to use weapons as

    a last resort. These concepts have to be explained and implemented.

    The common denominators for any operation remain intact:

    clearly define the opponents and make absolutely sure you distinguish

    them from innocent civilians; use force only as a last resort and only against clearly defined targets;

    respect property, religious centres, hospitals and persons such as

    medical staff, religious personnel, the wounded and sick. Pay particular

    attention to the safety of and respect for women, children and the aged.

    If you fail to respect any of the above, you are breaking the law and will

    soon lose the respect and support of the civilian population, whom it is

    your duty to protect.

    SUMMARY OF THE LESSON

    Commanders at all levels are responsible for ensuring respect for the

    law of armed conflict. They will achieve this by knowing the rules that

    apply to the phases of battle and to different types of conflict. They

    must then make sure that the troops under their command comply

    with the law, by clearly demonstrating their interest and emphasis on

    training in the law in peacetime and by their conduct in operations.

    Commanders should regard the law as an aid, not a hindrance. If com-

    manders operate within the law, they are protected by their superiors

    and their State. If they go beyond the law, they are on their own.

    Questions from the class.

    15 - 6

    LESSON 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    19/32

    APPENDIX

    Questions from the instructor t o the class to conf irm t he lesson

    1. Commanders can be tried for war crimes even though they personally

    neither committed, directed or ordered the commission thereof.

    True or false?

    Answer: true.

    Examples of this:

    A. The General Yamashita trial. At the conclusion of World War II, the

    J apanese General Yamashita was tried, convicted and hanged because he

    ... unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duty as a command-

    er, to control the operations of the members of his command, permitting

    them to commit brutal atrocities (...) and he (...) thereby violated the laws

    of war. There was no allegation that General Yamashita either personally

    committed, directed or ordered the commission of any crimes, yet he was

    found guilty for failing as a commander to take those steps necessary to

    halt the atrocities being committed and punish the perpetrators. It isinherent in the nature of command to have control and responsibility

    over troops and the capability to influence the actions of subordinates.

    Source see Supreme court of the United States 327 US 1 (1946)

    General Douglas MacArthur, in reviewing and approving the findings of

    the military tribunal trying Yamashita, had this to say: This officer of

    proven field merit and entrusted with high command involving authority

    adequate to his responsibility has failed this stand: has failed his duty to

    his troops, to his country, to his enemy, and to mankind; has failed utterly

    his soldierly faith.

    B. The Queenfish case also illustrates the point. In 1945 the commander

    of the United States submarine Queenfish torpedoed a J apanese ship

    which had been granted safe conduct by superior headquarters.

    Although this information had been received on board the submarine,

    the commander was unaware of it. The court martial nevertheless

    found him guilty because he was responsible for the inefficient internal

    procedures on the submarine which resulted in his not being informed.

    COMM AN D RESPONSIBILITY

    16 - 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    20/32

    2.You receive an order which you know to be illegal, one that calls for

    the commission of an atrocity or otherwise violates the law of armedconflict. You must nevertheless enforce the order from higher authority

    and in doing so you will not be held personally responsible for the

    commission of a war crime. True or false?

    Answer: false.

    If you know that an order is a direct violation of the law and still imple-

    ment it, you and the individual issuing the order can be held personally

    accountable.

    EXAMPLES AND CASES

    Illegal orders / superior orders

    The My Lai massacre, Vietnam, 1968

    Lt. Calley was a platoon leader in a United States infantry battalion during

    the Vietnam War. His company was part of an organization known as

    Task Force Barker, whose mission was to subdue and drive out the

    enemy in an area in the Republic of Vietnam known as Pinkville. Before

    16 March 1968, this area, which included the village of My Lai, was aViet Cong stronghold. Lt. Calleys company, C Company, had operated

    in the area several times. Each time it had suffered casualties by sniper

    fire, machine-gun fire, mines and other forms of attack. Lt. Calley had

    accompanied his platoon on some of the incursions.

    On 15 March 1968, a memorial service was held for members of the

    company killed in the area during the preceding weeks. After the service,

    Capt. Ernest L. Medina, the commanding officer of C Company, briefed

    the company on a mission in the Pinkville area set for the next day.

    Intelligence reports indicated that the unit would be opposed by a veteran

    enemy battalion and that all civilians would be absent from the area.

    The mission was to destroy the enemy (authors emphasis).

    There was some argument later in the courtmartial proceedings as to

    exactly what was meant by the instructions to destroy. Capt. Medina

    testified that he instructed his troops that they were to destroy My Lai

    by burning the hootches, to kill the livestock, to close the wells and to

    destroy the food crops. Asked if women and children were to be killed,

    Medina said he replied in the negative, adding, You must use your

    common sense. If they have a weapon and are trying to engage you,

    then you can shoot back.

    17 - 6

    APPENDIX

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    21/32

    Lt. Calley, however, testified that Capt. Medina informed the troops they

    were to kill every living thing men, women, children and animals, andunder no circumstances were they to leave any Vietnamese behind

    them as they passed through the villages en route to their final objective.

    The operation began on 16 March 1968 with interdicting fire. C

    Company was then brought in by helicopters. Lt. Calley's platoon was

    on the first lift. The unit received no hostile fire from the village.

    On entering the village the platoon encountered only unarmed, unre-

    sisting men, women and children. The villagers were rounded up into

    collecting points. Lt. Calley testified that at this point Capt. Medina

    ordered him over the radio to waste the villagers. Lt. Calley further

    testified that he obeyed the orders because he had been taught the

    doctrine of obedience throughout his military career. Capt. Medina

    denied ever giving such an order.

    Lt. Calley subsequently carried out and was found guilty of the acts

    described below.

    He told Pfc Paul D. Meadlo, who was guarding a group of 30 to 40 old

    men and women and children, You know what to do. He then left. On

    his return, he asked Pfc Meadlo why the people were not yet dead.Meadlo replied he did not know that Lt. Calley had meant that they

    should be killed. Lt. Calley declared he wanted them dead. He and Pfc

    Meadlo then opened fire on the group, until all but a few children

    remained alive. Lt. Calley then personally shot these children. He

    expended 4 or 5 magazines from his M-16 rifle in the incident.

    Lt. Calley and Pfc Meadlo then moved from this point to an irrigation

    ditch on the east side of My Lai. There they encountered another

    group of civilians being held by several soldiers. Pfc Meadlo estimated

    that this group contained from 75 to 100 persons. Lt. Calley stated,

    We got another job to do, Meadlo. He ordered the group into the

    ditch and then he and Pfc Meadlo opened fire on them. Although

    ordered by Lt. Calley to shoot, Pfc J ames J . Dursi refused to join in

    the killings, and specialist Four Robert E. Maples refused to give his

    machine gun to Lt. Calley for use in the killings. Lt. Calley admitted

    that he fired into the ditch, with the muzzle of his weapon within 5 feet

    of people in it. He expended between 10 to 15 magazines of ammunition

    on this occasion.

    With the radio operator, Private Charles Sledge, Lt. Calley moved to the

    north end of the ditch. There, he found an elderly Vietnamese monk,

    whom he interrogated, struck with his rifle and then shot in the head.

    COMM AN D RESPONSIBILITY

    18 - 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    22/32

    Lt. Calley admitted interrogating and striking the monk but denied

    shooting him. He also denied that he had shot at a child running awayfrom the village.

    Lt. Calley based his defence on superior orders, on ignorance of the

    laws of war and on the fact that it was his honest belief that there were

    no innocent civilians in the village.

    The court martial found Lt. Calley guilty of the above offences. He was

    dismissed from the army and sentenced to confinement at hard labour

    for 20 years. The second part of the sentence was subsequently over-

    turned. In summing up the case, J udge Quinn had this to say: Whether

    Lt. Calley was the most ignorant person in the United States Army in

    Vietnam, or the most intelligent, he must be presumed to know that he

    could not kill the people involved there (authors emphasis).

    Source: H.S. Levie (ed), International Law Studies, Documents on Prisoners of War, Naval War College,

    R.I.; Naval War College, Vol. 60, Document No. 171, 1979, pp. 804-811.

    The Intifada, 1988

    In J anuary 1988, one month into the Intifada uprising against occupa-

    tion of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Col. Yehuda Meir ordered troops

    under his command to round up twenty Palestinian men from Hawara

    and Beita, two Arab villages in the West Bank, bind them with handcuffs

    and blindfolds, and break their bones. The unit commander reporting to

    Col. Meir passed on the order to his troops, but told them he did not

    require them to comply. Some soldiers refrained from doing so, but others

    carried out the order with such zeal that they broke their truncheons.

    The Israeli Defence Minister at the time publicly spoke of the need to

    break the bones of Intifada rioters. The Israeli High Court of J ustice

    subsequently ruled unanimously that Col. Meir should be tried in a

    special military tribunal for torture, intentionally causing bodily harm,

    grievous assault all grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions andunbecoming conduct. These actions outrage every civilized person,

    and no lack of clarity can cover it up, J ustice Moshe Bejski said.

    Certainly, if the order is given by a senior officer, that officer must be

    aware that the morality of the Israeli Defence Forces forbids such conduct.

    Following the High Courts decision, Col. Meir went on trial before a spe-

    cial military tribunal in Tel Aviv in April 1991. He was found guilty,

    demoted to the rank of private and deprived of his colonels pension.

    Source: N. Bar-Yaacov in Crimes of War: What the public should know, R. Gutman & D. Rieff (eds.),

    W.W. Norton & Co., New York/London, p. 98.

    19 - 6

    APPENDIX

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    23/32

    COMM AN D RESPONSIBILITY

    ANNEX A

    WAR CRIMES

    The list below is taken verbatim from the Rome Statute of the International

    Criminal Court. For ease of reference, the same article and paragraph

    numbers are used as in the Statute.

    Certain provisions are marked in bold for the sake of clarity, as are certain

    crimes not mentioned by the Statute but included in Protocol I of 1977

    additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

    CRIMES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

    The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes

    of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has

    jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the follow-

    ingcrimes:

    (a) the crime of genocide;

    (b) crimes against humanity;

    (c) war crimes;(d) the crime of aggression.

    The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a

    provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the

    crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise

    jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consis-

    tent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

    GENOCIDE

    For the purpose of this Statute, genocide means any of the following

    acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,

    ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) killing members of the group;

    (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to

    bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    1 This article is applicable in peacetime as well as during armed conflict.

    Article 5

    Article 6 1

    20 - 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    24/32

    ANNEX A

    CRIMES AGAINST HUM ANITY

    For the purpose of this Statute, crime against humanity means any of

    the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic

    attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

    (a) murder;

    (b) extermination;

    (c) enslavement;

    (d) deportation or forcible transfer of population;

    (e) imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in

    violation of fundamental rules of international law;

    (f) torture;

    (g) rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy,

    enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of

    comparable gravity;

    (h) persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on

    political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as

    defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally

    recognized as impermissible under international law, in connec-

    tion with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within

    the jurisdiction of the Court;

    (i) enforced disappearance of persons;(j) the crime of apartheid;

    (k) other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing

    great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical

    health.

    WAR CRIMES

    For the purpose of this Statute, war crimes means:

    (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely,

    any of the following acts against persons or property protected under

    the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

    (i) wilful killing;

    (ii) torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

    (iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or

    health;

    2 Crimes against humanity may be committed during an armed conflict or in time of peace.

    Article 7 2

    Article 8

    21 - 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    25/32

    COMM AN D RESPONSIBILITY

    (iv) extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified

    by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;(v) compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve

    in the forces of a hostile Power;

    (vi) wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of

    the rights of fair and regular trial;

    (vii) unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

    (viii) taking of hostages.

    (b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in

    international armed conflict, within the established framework of

    international law, namely, any of the following acts:

    (i) intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such

    or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

    (ii) intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is,

    objects which are not military objectives;

    (iii) intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations,

    material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or

    peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United

    Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civil-

    ians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

    (iv) intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attackwill cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to

    civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the

    natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation

    to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

    (v) attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages,

    dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not

    military objectives;

    (vi) killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or

    having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

    (vii) making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the mili-

    tary insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations,

    as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions,

    resulting in death or serious personal injury;

    (viii) the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of

    parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies,

    or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of

    the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

    (ix) intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to reli-

    gion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic

    monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded

    are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

    22 - 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    26/32

    ANNEX A

    (x) subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to

    physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of anykind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital

    treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her

    interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the

    health of such person or persons;

    (xi) killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the

    hostile nation or army;

    (xii) declaring that no quarter will be given;

    (xiii) destroying or seizing the enemys property unless such destruction

    or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

    (xiv) declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law

    the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;

    (xv) compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the

    operations of war directed against their own country, even if they

    were in the belligerents service before the commencement of

    the war;

    (xvi) pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

    (xvii) employing poison or poisoned weapons;

    (xviii)employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all

    analogous liquids, materials or devices;

    (xix) employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human

    body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirelycover the core or is pierced with incisions;

    (xx) employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of

    warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or

    unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in

    violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that

    such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare

    are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included

    in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with

    the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

    (xxi) committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular

    humiliating and degrading treatment;

    (xxii) committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced

    pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced ster-

    ilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a

    grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;

    (xxiii)utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to

    render certain points, areas or military forces immune from

    military operations;

    (xxiv)intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material,

    medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive

    emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with inter-

    national law;

    23 - 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    27/32

    COMM AN D RESPONSIBILITY

    (xxv) intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare

    by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival,including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under

    the Geneva Conventions;

    (xxvi)conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years

    into the national armed forces or using them to participate

    actively in hostilities.

    (c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character,

    serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions

    of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against

    persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of

    armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de

    combatby sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

    (i) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,

    mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

    (ii) committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular

    humiliating and degrading treatment;

    (iii) taking of hostages;

    (iv) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions

    without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly consti-

    tuted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generallyrecognized as indispensable.

    (d) Paragraph (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international char-

    acter and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and

    tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other

    acts of a similar nature.

    (e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed

    conflicts not of an international character, within the established frame-

    work of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

    (i) intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population

    as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in

    hostilities;

    (ii) intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material,

    medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinc-

    tive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with

    international law;

    24 - 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    28/32

    ANNEX A

    (iii) intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations,

    material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistanceor peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the

    United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection

    given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of

    armed conflict;

    (iv) intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to reli-

    gion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic

    monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded

    are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

    (v) pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

    (vi) committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced

    pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced ster-

    ilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting

    a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva

    Conventions;

    (vii) conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years

    into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively

    in hostilities;

    (viii) ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons

    related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved

    or imperative military reasons so demand;

    (ix) killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;(x) declaring that no quarter will be given;

    (xi) subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the

    conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experi-

    ments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical,

    dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried

    out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously

    endanger the health of such person or persons;

    (xii) destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such

    destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities

    of the conflict;

    (f) Paragraph 2 (e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international

    character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances

    and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or

    other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place

    in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict

    between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or

    between such groups.

    25 - 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    29/32

    COMM AN D RESPONSIBILITY

    ADDITIONAL GRAVE BREACHES NOT MENTIONED

    IN THE STATUTE

    GP I provides that the following acts constitute breaches if they are com-

    mitted wilfully, in violation of the relevant provisions of the Protocol,

    and cause death or serious injury to body or health:

    launching an attack against works or installations containing dan-

    gerous forces in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive

    collateral civilian damage;

    making non-defended localities and demilitarized zones the object of

    attack.

    GP I also provides that certain other acts are grave breaches when com-

    mitted wilfully and in violation of the Geneva Conventions or GP I, in

    particular:

    unjustifiable delay in repatriating POWs or civilians.

    ANNEX B

    DEFENCE TO WAR CRIM ES CHARGES

    ACCIDENT

    The fact that death or damage was caused by accident may be a defence.

    If the death of a protected person or damage to protected property

    resulted from a mistake, the malfunctioning of a weapon, an accident

    (for example, if you intended to target an enemy combatant but the bul-

    let went astray and you hit a civilian instead), a ricochet, or the acciden-

    tal discharge of your personal weapon, that might be a defence, the rea-

    son being you did not intend to hit the civilian.The necessary wilful

    intent is not present. This is an issue of fact for a tribunal to determine.

    If the tribunal considers that death, damage or injury may have been

    caused by mistake, the accused would be entitled to acquittal on that

    charge, unless he or she is judged to have acted recklessly.

    DURESS

    Persons accused of war crimes are entitled to plead that they acted

    under duress. They might, for example, have felt an immediate and

    GP I, Art. 85 (3 c & d)

    GP I, Art. 85 (4)(b)

    26 - 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    30/32

    ANNEX A & B

    real fear for their own lives or been under the threat of continuing or

    imminent serious bodily harm to them or another person. This wouldbe the exception rather than the rule, as it would be very difficult to

    prove. It would not be sufficient, however, that they were threatened

    with subsequent disciplinary or punitive action if they failed to commit

    the act in question, although in such circumstances the threat may be

    considered in mitigation of punishment.3

    IGNORANCE OF THE LAW

    Ignorance of the law is no defence, but if the law is unclear, the accused

    should be given the benefit of the doubt or awarded only a nominal

    punishment.

    MISTAKE OF FACT

    Mistake of fact is a defence if it negates the mental element required

    for a crime.4

    So, for example, if a tank troop commander is ordered to fire at an

    enemy command post in a particular building and he does so, on thebasis of all available up-to-date intelligence, believing that it is a com-

    mand post but it later turns out that, unbeknown to him, it was a school,

    he would not be guilty of a war crime because he did not intend to attack

    a school.

    SUPERIOR ORDERS

    Superior orders are no defence to war crimes charges but may be taken

    into account in mitigation of punishment.5

    MILITARY NECESSITY

    A person accused of war crimes cannot plead military necessity, unless

    the act in question relates to the breach of a rule which stipulates that

    military necessity may be taken into consideration.

    3 Statute of the International Criminal Court, Art. 31, para.1(d). The judgement of 7 October 1997 of the

    Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Erdemovic

    case held that duress was not an absolute defence to war crimes.

    4 Statute of the International Criminal Court, Art 32

    5. Art. 33 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court states, however, that superior orders do not

    relieve a person of criminal responsibility unless:

    a. the person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the government or the superior in question;

    b. the person did not know that the order was unlawful; and

    c. the order was not manifestly unlawful.

    27 - 6

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    31/32

    Mission

    The International C ommittee of the Red C ross (ICRC ) is an impartial, neutral and independent organization

    whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence

    and to provide them with assistance. It directs and coordinates the international relief activities conducted by

    the M ovement in situations of conflict. I t also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening

    humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles. Established in 1863, the IC R C is at the origin of the

    International Red Cross and R ed Crescent M ovement.

  • 7/28/2019 Law6 Final

    32/32

    Lesson 6

    LAND

    6.

    2002

    2,

    500